[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3074-H3075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING IMPROPER CONDUCT BY MR. STARR ARE AT LEAST AS
CREDIBLE AS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LABOR SECRETARY ALEXIS HERMAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have just asked the Attorney General to
investigate the possibility that independent counsel Kenneth Starr may
have improperly shared information and coordinated their activities
with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), my friend, or his staff.
In support of this request, I point out that Chairman Burton
coincidentally released his selectively edited transcripts on the same
day that Judge Starr announced his new punitive indictments of Mr.
Webster Hubble. According to published reports, ``The transcription and
editing process of the tapes was a crash project aimed to coincide with
last week's new indictment of Hubble.'' Recent reports have also made
it clear that members of Chairman Burton's staff had developed several
close contacts in Judge Starr's office and communicated with them
regularly.
For example, it was reported that several Republican sources
confirmed that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
[[Page H3075]]
Burton), this is a quote, ``refused to release the transcripts until
the week Hubble was indicted for tax evasion and fraud, a committee
source said. Mr. Bossee, one committee staffer, has several friends
close to independent counsel Kenneth Starr and urged Burton to withhold
the tapes until last week.''
Yesterday, a Republican aide on Mr. Burton's committee was quoted in
the press as admitting that the timing looked ``fishy,'' but he denied
there was any coordination. Well, I agree that it looks bad and that it
deserves investigation.
These facts raise a simple question: Did Judge Starr let Chairman
Burton's staff know in advance that he was returning an indictment on
Webster Hubble? If so, what other kinds of information is he sharing
with Republican investigators? If Judge Starr has been sharing
information with Chairman Burton, these would constitute violations of
law by the independent counsel himself.
Frankly, I believe these allegations are far more specific and
credible than those which today compelled Attorney General Reno to seek
an independent counsel for Miss Herman.
The Attorney General admitted that she found ``no evidence clearly
demonstrating Secretary Herman's involvement.'' Nevertheless, a counsel
was appointed.
It disturbs me greatly that the independent counsel law can produce
this kind of result. Department of Justice investigators worked for 5
minutes and found no clear evidence of wrongdoing by Ms. Herman.
Nevertheless, Attorney General Reno felt compelled to appoint an
independent counsel.
Now, if the Attorney General can appoint an independent counsel, a
person with unlimited resources and time and money to spend
investigating these kinds of allegations, then surely it is appropriate
for the Attorney General to at least investigate some of the disturbing
coincidences that surround Chairman Burton's release of the Webster
Hubble tapes at the beginning of the month.
{time} 1945
By the way, what was the purpose of Chairman Burton subpoenaing tapes
from the Department of Justice and then releasing them to the public?
What was his point? What service was he providing, or thought that he
was providing?
Judge Starr has said that the rule of law is supreme, and on that he
is right. The law applies to all equally, including him, the
Independent Counsel.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a communication that I have
from Attorney Stuart F. Pierson, counsel for Marsha Scott, who says
that he has found that the questions put to him by the Burton committee
were extraordinary in that they were virtually identical to the
questions put to her less than 2 months ago before a Federal grand
jury.
The material referred to is as follows:
Levine Pierson Sullivan and Koch,
Washington, DC, May 8, 1997.
Richard D. Bennett, Esq.,
Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Kenneth W. Starr, Esq.,
Independent Counsel, Office of Independent Counsel,
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bennett and Mr. Starr: As counsel for Marsha
Scott, I am writing to advise you of a concern which has
arisen in connection with deposition questions propounded by
majority counsel of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs (the ``Burton Committee'').
Ms. Scott has appeared five times before federal grand
juries under subpoena by the Independent Counsel, once in
Little Rock and the remainder in Washington, D.C. The last
appearances were on March 26 and 31, 1998.
Prior to her appearances in March, Ms. Scott had been
examined by the Independent Counsel about a wide variety of
subjects, including her relationship with Webb Hubbell, her
communications with Mr. Hubbell and people in the White House
while he was in prison, his business activities following his
resignation from the Justice Department, his financial
condition, and conversations in the White House concerning
him, his family and his financial condition. Ms. Scott
answered all of those questions to the best of her ability.
Ms. Scott has also appeared at numerous depositions under
subpoena by the committees of the United States Senate and
the United States House of Representatives. On April 1, 1998,
as a consequence of her withdrawal from a deposition that had
become repetitious and vexatious, as taken by counsel for the
House Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight (the ``McIntosh Subcommittee''), Ms. Scott was
required forthwith to appear at a closed-door hearing called
by Mr. McIntosh. At that hearing, Ms. Scott agreed to return
to complete the deposition by counsel for the McIntosh
Subcommittee. Within ten days of that agreement, counsel for
the Burton Committee called informally to advise that she
intended to take deposition testimony in addition to that to
be taken for the McIntosh Subcommittee.
On April 28, 1998, Ms. Scott returned for the completion of
her deposition by the McIntosh Subcommittee. Following all
testimony taken by counsel for that subcommittee, counsel for
the Burton Committee appeared and conducted further
examination of Ms. Scott over objection. It is that further
examination that has raised the concern to which I refer.
While relatively short, the questioning by counsel for the
Burton Committee was in at least five respects virtually
identical to examination taken of Ms. Scott by the
Independent Counsel before a federal grant jury on March 26,
1998. Specifically, both examinations addressed: (1) whether
Ms. Scott was aware of any displeasure expressed by or for
the First Lady about the possibility that Mr. Hubbell might
sue the Rose law firm concerning his billing dispute; (2)
whether Mr. Hubbell ever discussed the nature or extent of
his cooperation with the Independent Counsel; and (3) what
knowledge Ms. Scott had of conversations with, and the
activities of Mr. Hubbell's accountant, Mike Schamfele.
Additionally, both examinations repeated questions about any
conversations Ms. Scott had with Mr. Hubbell concerning his
clients after leaving the Justice Department, and any
discussions in the White House that Ms. Scott was aware of
concerning Mr. Hubbell's financial condition. The identity of
such examination was particularly remarkable considering that
Burton Committee counsel had asked to take it without any
formal notice less than a month after the Independent Counsel
has conducted its examination.
At the close of the examination by counsel for the Burton
Committee, I asked that the committee and the subcommittee be
advised that I found it extraordinary that the questions
asked of Ms. Scott were virtually identical to questions put
to her less than two months before in a federal grand jury. I
reiterate that observation by this letter, and I request that
a responsible representative of the Independent Counsel and
the Burton Committee advise me by return letter whether the
examination of Ms. Scott is a consequence of the sharing of
any information, documents or consultation between the Office
of Independent Counsel and the Burton Committee.
Sincerely,
Stuart F. Pierson,
Counsel for Marsha Scott.
____________________